I'm not trying to start a hardware flame war or anything. Trust me, I'm not. I'm only bringing this up because I want to see the SI-1920HDVR succeed. But I was wondering how the makers of this camera hope to combat the RED Camera. Yes, I know that the RED camera is not out yet, but if it does live up to its specs and its price, how can the SI-1920HDVR hope to compete? I'm really having trouble seeing how the SI-1920HDVR has any advantage over a theoretical RED camera. After all, the SI-1920HDVR cost more than the Red Camera, and does a lot less too. It seems to me that the SI-1920HDVR's only hope is to come down in price if it hopes to compete, no?

The price quoted for the RED is only for the camera section, it doesn't include a method of recording or other accessories. The SI offers the same set up for $12.5K.

RED's unique selling point is the 4k 35mm size sensor. However, making full use of that feature won't be cheap. However, I suspect a lot of people will be using 16mm lens and shooting 2k on the RED and then the SI's price is competitive. The cost of a camera is more than just one part, it's the cost of the whole system needed to shoot a film.

At the moment SI's advantage is they have working prototypes that are currently being field tested on productions. Currently, the RED is in the R & D stage on the bench, it's big advantage is the marketing.

>>RED's unique selling point is the 4k 35mm size sensor. However, making full use of that feature won't be cheap. However, I suspect a lot of people will be using 16mm lens and shooting 2k on the RED and then the SI's price is competitive. The cost of a camera is more than just one part, it's the cost of the whole system needed to shoot a film.<<

I thought you had to use a 35mm size lens with the RED Camera?

After all, the SI-1920HDVR cost more than the Red Camera, and does a lot less too.

One needs to think about what "a lot less" means . . . .

Yes, the RED has a larger sensor . . . but notice that on-board you can only shoot 2K resolution, if you want 4K, you're going to have to cough up a lot of cash to create a recording solution that can ingest via infiniband and record at up to 1GB/s (10Gb/s) for 4K/60p.

Also we are going to have a higher signal-to-noise ratio with our sensor than what they are quoting, so our images should be cleaner/less noisy, which transfers into more dynamic range.

Additionally our camera will be 2K. So basically for most intents and purposes, you're looking at a 2K Silicon Imaging camera vs. a 2K RED.

RED does have the advantage that their 2K will be a 2x oversampled 4K image . . . but they will not be shooting RAW like we will (it will be processed RGB or YUV), especially in a format like Cineform RAW that gives you 4 streams of real-time effects at 2K on "decent" dual-Opteron workstation.

If that's the case, then doing things like re-doing the color matrix, re-dogin the white-balance for optimal dynamic range in the highlights, going back to photometrically linear, etc. is impossible with the RED camera.

Another thing to consider is that they have to-do a real-time demosaic in-camera to get the 2K RGB images. We have the luxury of doing some very complicated algorithms in post that will give you super-high quality images . . . that will mitigate the advantage of their 2x oversampled 2K, since the method by which they are generating the RGB images will be inferior to how we will be demosaicing . . . as a result, our 2K vs. their 2x oversampled 2K images will be on a more level playing field than the numbers would suggest. A 2x oversampled image from a weaker real-time demosaic algorithm vs. a non-oversampled image from a very strong adaptive algorithm could end up being quite even in overall resolution, lack of image artifacts, and sharpness.

We will have an uncompressed RAW mode (up to 2K again) that will record 12-bit linear, and an exporter to DNG file sequences so you can ingest the footage straight into After Effects or any other third-party RAW converter on the market that accepts DNG files (a number of them do for still cameras).

We have some very nice playback capabilities, and there are also a number of other tricks that we can do because we're a computer.

For instance, with the RED, while you're recording, can somebody else be playing the files off the machine, adding metadata as they play it back, etc.? Can you be editing the files *right on the camera* while your DP is shooting (if you wanted to-do that)? In this case, the camera *is* the computer, it *is* (or can be) the central nervous system of the shoot . . . the camera is not a separate ingest point. Red AFAIK doesn't have shared storage capabilities. So when it comes to group workflows on set, this is a very powerful feature that I don't think should be ignored, since we're now talking about very powerful colaborative features. Sure you can take an HD-SDI feed off the RED and pipe that around the set, but I don't think that's as efficient as workign directly with the RAW files right from the source of recording (like Spoon is doing right now).

And again, don't ignore the fact that we're shooting RAW, while RED is shooting to processed RGB/YUV (they will have a RAW mode, but their codec is not going to be as good as our Cineform RAW codec which lets you work with the RAW material in real-time in Premiere/After Effects, Final Cut, or any QT capable application. Also you can't record RAW mode on-camera). RAW is enabling you to basically go back to the source, and manipulate the data as you need, not how the camera does it on the day of the shoot. Don't like the white-balance . . .change it. Don't like the gamma curve . . . okay, change it. Don't like the color matrix (and default color "look") . . . no problem, change it. Hate the demosaicing algorithm . . . what the heck, change it.

And the REALLY nice thing is that since we're software, if RED does come out with a functionality feature that everyone really likes, chances are, we can add it free of cost to the end user in a very quick time-frame :) And of course on less of a copy-cat note, we can innovate and evolve our software much faster to the needs of the end user than RED can do on their camera (how many firmware upgrades have you seen that actually do major functionality changes to your hardware on the same scale as software changes?).

So you can see how there's lots of flexiblity that we'll be providing with our camera/software combination that RED can't provide.

>>

I thought you had to use a 35mm size lens with the RED Camera?

You can have a window for other image sizes. RED currently seems to just offer a PL mount for the lens, which is also used on modern 16/S16 lenses.

The SI also offers C mount, which is an extremely useful feature if you've got a limited budget.

I can't see much point in putting a 16mm lens on a 35mm sensor, putting a 16mm lens on a cheaper 2/3" sensor does make sense.
I suspect there's not a huge difference cost wise between a 2/3" sensor as used in the SI camera and a 35mm sensor used in the RED.
Where there is a big difference is between 16mm and 35mm cine lenses.
Where there's another big difference is in handling the amount of data coming out of a 35mm sensor, not just in recording it but handling it in post. SI and Cineform have demonstrated a workable, relatively affordable way to do it. The total cost of ownership is a known quantity.
RED can in all honesty say their solution is afforable if it's 50% of the current offerings but that still leaves it way more expensive than the SI offering.
To put it another way, if RED can deliver an end to end solution at 4 times the cost of the SI solution then it is revolutionary as that's roughly a linear cost scaling, typically the cost scaling is exponential.
The big question is how many can afford the SI solution?
How many can afford the RED solution at lets say 4x the price?

How many will be offering either for rental, who will supply support / service networks, training for technicians to keep the things running right and spare parts.

This is a big part of the hidden cost structure in any piece of expensive hi tech gear.

If you want to shoot a documentary using a RED camera, filming with a much smaller 10 to 1 16/S16 zoom lens makes a lot more sense than the much larger equivalent 35mm zoom lens.

Jason, thanks for that explanation, that clears a lot of things up for me. I’m very much looking forward to your camera.

"but their codec is not going to be as good as our Cineform RAW codec which lets you work with the RAW material in real-time in Premiere/After Effects, Final Cut, or any QT capable application. Also you can't record RAW mode on-camera). "

unless you know something we don't this is really UNKNOWN as the RED codec/workflow is not released ... as of today and until at least till Q3 the RAW cineform material will NOT play real time (nor be put in time line) in FCP or any QT application ...

The SI camera & RED IMO will co exist together .. just like the 4 hand size HDV/HD camera's.. they all offer something slightly different ...

some will buy/use both SI & RED camera's ... IMO both will be winners

Problem is, RED has a 35mm sized sensor. Silicon Imaging has 2/3rd inch cmos

That feature alone is worth the non raw images and the firmware based machine to me. But I am a flat deep DOF hater too so...;) If Red uses edge sharpening though...I will RUN as far and as fast as I can away from that camera!


Who knows, time will tell. In the mean time I am happy as heck with my little hvx200+redrock+rails+followfocus+Cavision matte box. Our production company can now make "real" work without having to rent every time we need a greenscreen shot or a plate or footage that looks "pro" this cam ROCKS for the price IMHO

"but their codec is not going to be as good as our Cineform RAW codec which lets you work with the RAW material in real-time in Premiere/After Effects, Final Cut, or any QT capable application. Also you can't record RAW mode on-camera). "

unless you know something we don't this is really UNKNOWN as the RED codec/workflow is not released


The major point you're missing which has already been revealed is that REDCODE is not compressing RAW data like Cineform RAW . . . the RED team has mentioned nothing about compressing RAW data with REDCODE.

4:4:4 and 4:2:2 are NOT RAW color-spaces . . . in order to get a 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 image, you have to demosaic.

Once you're out of the RAW colorspace (and erase the per-pixel bayer information), you loose the ability to do stuff like re-do the color matrix, re-do white-balance, re-do the demosaicing algorithm, go back to photometricallylinear, re-do the gamma curves, etc. RAW is the latent electronic image from the sensor . . . once you "develop" it, and compress it, that information is forever gone.

Cineform RAW allows us to preserve all that information and dynamic range, and deliver it for manipulation in post with multiple real-time streams. I think that's a key benefit over REDCODE. It may do a great job compressing to 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 10-bit data, but it's not going to be RAW data which gets you so much more mileage and is passing around a TRUE digital negative-the advantages of having the actual digital negative vs. a "developed" image for DI are enormous.

Problem is, RED has a 35mm sized sensor. Silicon Imaging has 2/3rd inch cmos

That feature alone is worth the non raw images and the firmware based machine to me. But I am a flat deep DOF hater too so...;)

Hi Obin,

If you read our FAQ, you will see that you can get the same DOF on a 2/3" sensor to a f4-5.6 split 35mm sensor if you use Zeiss primes at f1.2 (wide-open, which is T1.3).

While F4-5.6 split is not f2.8 or less, it's still fairly shallow DOF. While that is a concern, I don't think it's as big a concern as one would think.

If you go over to our footage on the website, you'll see that we're not having a "deep DOF" issue with our sensor. A number of the shots are quite shallow acutally.

BTW, Everyone should again keep in mind that to utilize the 4K images from the RED camera, you're going to have to come up with a recording solution of your own . . . you cannot do that on-camera (only 2K, which we will be doing as well).

So if you want to make it a purely resolution game, again, we're talking a real-time linear demosaiced 2x oversampled 2K RGB/YUV image from the RED, vs. our 2K RAW bayer image with post-based non-linear adaptive demosaicing (and the abilty to add your own demosaicing engine via a simple DLL interface since we're just recording RAW).

Jason, makes excellent points. Remember many films have been shot in Super 16mm and Shallow DOF being less than 35mm has never really been an issue. The SI seems to bring plenty of control for DOF.

Side note: We were ready to shoot our indy feature on the HD100, but I may have to look more into the SI solution. I wish I would have stopped by at NAB.

Interesting thread, but I'm not here to get into a my camera is better than yours - that's just silly. However, Jason's comments are based upon his supposition of how the RED camera will work, not facts.

Graeme

"If you read our FAQ, you will see that you can get the same DOF on a 2/3" sensor to a f4-5.6 split 35mm sensor if you use Zeiss primes at f1.2 (wide-open, which is T1.3"

then this would be TRUE of any 2/3 " CCD camera and it would hold true for 16mm vs. 35mm and to even stretch it further you could find the same DoF between a 1/3" camera shooting at a certain field of view at F 1.3 and match it to same field of view for 35mm lens shooting at F128 .. i really don't think you're going to find many cinematographers buying that DoF line..
.. cinealta, viper, varicam all can claim the same 35mm comparison DoF for
their camera's but they don't ????

i happen to like S16mm and have no problem with the DoF ... and i like
the DoF on the clips i've seen shot with the SI camera ..
the SI camera has been producing excellent images = no if's, and's, or butt's.
IMO loose the 2/3 vs 35mm DoF thing as a selling point ..

Hey, I'm no expert here, but Jason, some of your points aren't entirely correct. First of all, the RED can record 4k to the RED-RAID, which is mounted on one of the RED cages. So there you go, onboard 4k. Also, it appears that RED will probably be working right out-of-the-box with Final Cut Pro, just like the SI camera.

And also, though this is less of a tech point than the ones above, but having a completely RAW workflow really makes me an ideal candidate to not buy this camera. If I can't take the footage right out of the camera, put it into Final Cut, and 20 minutes later have a rough cut of a few shots to show a client, without compressing, adjusting color spaces, and all that jazz, I can't work with it. So, for me, the RAW is actually a disadvantage. Maybe it's not for some of you filmmakers out there, but for me, doing Documentary/ENG work, I want a high quality D-Cinema camera, but I don't want to have to wait for "dailies". So, in my mind, that's not as big of an advantage as you're touting it to be. RAW isn't for everybody.

I mean, you've got a great camera for filmmakers who want a slightly lower priced system than RED, and who could love the workflow of RAW, but it's not a perfect camera for everybody. RED isn't pefect either, but it's more in line with what many other people want. I personally think that camera co-existing is perfectly good, and I think this will be a situation in which that will be perfect.

(And I'm waiting for the first shoot using REDs and SI cameras at the same time.)

If I can't take the footage right out of the camera, put it into Final Cut, and 20 minutes later have a rough cut of a few shots to show a client, without compressing, adjusting color spaces, and all that jazz, I can't work with it. So, for me, the RAW is actually a disadvantage.

I'm sorry you were not able to see our demos at NAB . . . but we were doing exactly what you need with the RAW footage without all the data-manipulation baggage you mention.

Shooting, editing, color-correction, rough-cutting, the RAW data is completely transparent to the end user with the Cineform RAW codec . . . it behaves just like any other AVI file. It even plays back in Windows Media player straight from the camera (that's how we were playing back dailies on the NAB show floor)

So if you want, you can shoot, edit, and distribute (play out over HD-SDI, burn to a DVD, or whatever you want to-do) just like you have with any other file format like a P2 file or something you've ingest off tape. BUT if you want, with the power of RAW you can then also go back and do all the messing around in post that you want.

Depending on how you want to manage, edit, and manipulate the footage, Cineform RAW gives you a choice. If you want to ignore the RAW features and just treat the footage as "normal" like any other file from any other camera (or like any AVI or QT file for that fact), all the capabilities to-do that are right there right now. If you want to be a tweaker and completely re-do the footage as something else, you can do that as well. Depending on your clients, the time constraints, etc. the choice is yours.

I stand corrected Jason. Thank you for replying like that. I, truthfully, have had no experience with RAW outside of some photos I've worked with for my boss, and incorporating them into video productions. This does cut some of my problems with the SI camera, and to me makes it a much more viable option for those in the ENG/documentary film business. It looks like more and more the difference is not so much of a workflow one, but as a question of lenses, and also body style. The RED seems to me more suited for Steadicam or Handheld, whereas the SI seems much better on sticks or a dolly, or in a studio setup.

Just based upon your response though, I really must say you sound like a good person, and I look forward to working with your camera. (I probably will end up using it sometime or another.)

First of all, the RED can record 4k to the RED-RAID, which is mounted on one of the RED cages.

Just curious . . . not to knock RED, but what kind of portable, battery powered, redudant RAID (so level 3 or higher) do you know of can record 1.1 Gigabyte per second (4K@60p)? Even 24P is still 400MB/s.

That's not what I would call a "portable" on-camera storage unit.

Also a 3.5" HDD takes up 35W to spin up, and 8-10W for operation. They also can't take more than 60G's of operating shock. For 1GB/s at RAID 3 or 5, you'll need around 8-10 drives . . . not really an option since that's going to be the size of half an Xserve RAID.

There are some more robust 2.5" HDD's that could do the job, but you're still talking about a RAID unit that's quite hefty, needing around 10-12 drives to work at those data-rates reliably from start-to-finish (that's just for 400MB/s, not 1 Gigabyte per second). The box will be quite a bit smaller than the 3.5" drives, but again, this would only be for around 400MB/s from start-to-finish . . . so you're not going to get any fancy frame-rates. But I *could* see that as a possibilitiy for 24P work.

Flash drives could most likely bare the load with less drives, but that will come at a significant price or data size penalty.

Full 4K uncompressed recording from the RED camera, unless something changes, will not be a cheap proposition. Either it will take an external RAID, or it will take something like a Codex box, neither of which are very cheap.

True. I think that for now, until prices come down, the RED will work beautifully as a 2k camera, right alongside the SI camera, and just when prices come down enough, or for people with enough money right out of the bat, it can also step up and do 4k. Maybe the RED RAID will be more of a rental item than something to buy with the camera. Who knows at this point.

Luckily though, both cameras are viable solutions. I am leaning twords the RED, because it's smaller, and I can fly it on my Steadicam, but the SI is a very viable option for more of the standard film shoots. We'll have to see how the RED does though. Maybe the RED will lean more twords professionals versus the SI leaning twords medium budget indies. That certainly might be a good situation. Indies get a great camera for their needs, Pros get a very similar camera, with a few more features for them.

I am leaning twords the RED, because it's smaller, and I can fly it on my Steadicam.

At the moment, the only smaller thing you could fly on your Steadicam is vapor. We are already flying and I can assure you you will be able fly just fine, either with Silicon MINI or DVR.

You can shoot this year and join us at the academy. Or wait around while others innovate and make break-thru productions. Your choice.

Just shoot IT!

Shoot with Silicon :-)


PS. The Silicon DVR will be smaller and lighter weight than the prototype unit.

"what kind of portable, battery powered, redudant RAID (so level 3 or higher) do you know of can record 1.1 Gigabyte per second (4K@60p)? Even 24P is still 400MB/s."

you are thinking OLD "normal box " normal codec's = OLD way of doing things etc.

you gotta THINK outside "normal" (old) way of doing things .... just like the SI camera doesn't do "normal/old way " when it processes/records ..
if SI had released some basic info on camera several months ago stating they would record RAW Bayer files to hard drive - most would be thinking RAID drives or dual SDI etc but SI found a way to do it over USB using a lap top drive .... so if SI could think outside the "normal box " why can't others think outside the box??

Hi Don,

You're right, we don't know exactly what RED is going to do (as Gramme mentioned). Unfortunetly a lot of what is out there is speculation because there are no hard facts concerning what their camera will be or not.

Of course we're doing some light compression (4:1 or 5:1, depends since it's a VBR codec) to get the RAW onto a single USB 2.0 drive. If Red chooses the uncompressed route for RAW, then they will have some difficulties with the RAID route (and hence where the current data-rate numbers come from).

They could of course do some very mild compression and get the data rates down . . . lossless compression might yield them a 2:1 ratio.

And of course they could follow our lead and do wavelet compression on the RAW bayer itself . . . will be interesting to see what they decide on doing. But that this point in time I can only go off what they've mentioned publicly, which is uncompressed RAW.

Shooting, editing, color-correction, rough-cutting, the RAW data is completely transparent to the end user with the Cineform RAW codec

That is something good to know...

Very fascinating discussion. I, as an impartial person would just like to say, this conversation seems to be about resolution. That's fine, but it shouldn't be, it's making the pixels count.

1. RED seems like an amazing camera, I won't say too much because all the information isn't here, however correct me if i'm wrong, but REDs goal is to to be future proof, right 4k, forget it, even for big studios it's not ergonomical. But for the near future, we'll be seeing HDD and newer technologies that will be able to handle that data rate and space.
2. Silicon, now okay, so it';s not 4k. Who cares? Who remembers seeing Sin City and Star Wars both high qaulity digital format movies? They looked great didn't they, on the big screen and on HD. At the end of the day we're making movies for the public, they're not as technical savvy as us, they see a good image and will watch the movie.

I for one, am going for the SIlicon right now, because I think that's all you need. Resolution is important, but it's about making the pixels count not counting your pixels.

You're right, we don't know exactly what RED is going to do (as Graeme mentioned).

Thanks! You're right, but reading you speculate is absolutely fascinating!

Graeme

I'm not technical and can't argue the fine points but I watched the countdown clock on the Red site before NAB -- "X days, X hurs until...." I could hardly wait. What was the big show at Red going to be?

Then, on Wednesday before I left for NAB, I read about Silicon Imaging and CioneForm doing a 2k camera with RAW footage and it is being shown IN OPERATION at NAB. That impressed me. I use HD Connect with my Z1 and A1U every day. CineForm is a godsend for HDV and the idea of RAW video took my breath away. Still, I thought, Red's prototype must be something great considering the countdown clock. And what did I see at NAB? A tent and a sign saying "Under Development." I wasn't too impressed. I can remember the Tucker automobile.

After coming back I read about the movie being shot with the Silicon Imaging camera and the reports are good. Assuming we see a camera from Red eventually, and I certainly hope we do, I would have to say they dropped the ball this year in my book. You can't shoot a movie with a sign and a tent.

Jerry, you said that very well.

I'm minutes away from Oakley and I've always admired their approach to design and manufacturing but I too feel they over hyped and under delivered.

However, you have to admit....their marketing strategy is working. Look how many people (even in this thread) are swearing by the Red (ready to give up their child for it) and saying it will be better than anything. Yet they have never even seen a single image from the camera, 1% of a working prototype or any true specifications of how it will all work. Just a tent, a sign and a very simple (non detailed) mold of the body in a glass case.

I'm very excited that companies like SI and Red are finally figuring out what we need in a camera. Look at what SI has done, look at those images, imagine if they had Sony, JVC or Panasonic money behind them?

Ditto what Tim said. SI is a real camera which will be shipping soon and offer an established workflow for generating true 1080p output from an affordable camera with a decent-sized sensor. Red is vaporware with many unanswered questions about workflow and cost. If I had money to spare for the SI camera I'd buy it in a heartbeat with no second thought about what Red might offer someday, if it ever ships. Unless you're planning a major theatrical release there's not much point in shooting higher resolution than 1080p anyway.

Thanks to you guys. I thought I might be tarred and feathered for my comments but someone should be saying, "The Emperor is running around in his underwear." I think it is great that companies are pushing the envelope. Nothing but good can come of it but while Red talked, SI walked - and very well indeed. Shoot it, edit it and put it out. They have the answers.

Two years ago I went to NAB expecting JVC to follow up their 1 chip HDV camera with a 3 cccd model. They had a year to get it out but they didn't. They had a year head start on Sony but Sony came out with the FX1 and Z1 - even the A1U - before JVC got their 3 ccd HDV camera out. I hear it is a nice camera and I'd like progressive but I've bought a Z1 and an A1U in the meantime. He who hesitates....etc., and Red hesitated way too long. At least that's what I think.

I had an entire post typed up, around 2 pages, about why the RED camera in my opinion may be a better choice than the SI, but I decided not to post it, because really, the last thing we need is a flame war.

Please people, realize that although the SI is great, the RED is too. The RED is revolutionary in the same way that the SI is. The SI's a fine camera for indies. The RED is too. The SI will make it's way onto some higher end productions. The RED will obviously do that also, possibly more thanks to the higher resolution and 35mm lenses, but those things may also keep some indies out of it.

So, the way I look at it is that the RED and the SI are actually not so much competing as they are co-existing. For someone who wants to just be shooting now, and have a camera to last them a decent time, and who will then upgrade when the time comes, the SI's a perfect camera. It's also cheaper. But, the RED is aimed at people who have the money to put up-front to be able to keep a camera for a good long time, continually preforming small software updates and a sensor upgrade eventually, keeping it alive and kicking butts beyond where the SI may, but it does cost money up front, and may cost more money to use because of higher lens costs, and differing ways of storing data. The RED also will be working as a good ENG camera, something which I don't feel the SI would be suited for at all.

So, if you look at it that way, the SI and RED, while having many similar features, aren't exactly aimed at the same customer. Sure, there's some overlap, but that's unavoidable.

Thus, let's all just stop bashing each other's cameras, just sit back, relax, and make films, and be happy with the camera that we have, or will have.

Alright guys, enough for my peace-fest of a post, now I've got to get back to actually doing some schoolwork.

"Red is vaporware with many unanswered questions about workflow and cost. If I had money to spare for the SI camera I'd buy it in a heartbeat with no second thought about what Red might offer someday, if it ever ships"

it all depends on where ONE is sitting ...
very easy to say i would BUY X camera ( or anything for that matter) IF i had the $$ ..

when you HAVE/get the $$ then you'll look at it from a totally different POV ..
when you write a check for $20,000.00 plus tax in CA... you think/talk different when you know you're not going to be writing a check ...

bottom line = we all try to get the most camera for the amount of $$ we spend. if you have 5K you look at that price range .. if 12K you look there .. there is a camera in just about every price range ..
if you need a camera NOW you look at what is available TODAY .. if don't need a camera till next June then keep your eyes open and next May see what is available ...

[QUOTE=Tom Wills] having a completely RAW workflow really makes me an ideal candidate to not buy this camera. If I can't take the footage right out of the camera, put it into Final Cut, and 20 minutes later have a rough cut of a few shots to show a client, without compressing, adjusting color spaces, and all that jazz, I can't work with it. So, for me, the RAW is actually a disadvantage. Maybe it's not for some of you filmmakers out there, but for me, doing Documentary/ENG work, I want a high quality D-Cinema camera, but I don't want to have to wait for "dailies". So, in my mind, that's not as big of an advantage as you're touting it to be. RAW isn't for everybody. [QUOTE]

Tom,

Are you aware that, today, you can shoot a file(s) with our camera and hand a USB Thumbdrive to your client and have them instantly play the file in Windows Media Player on their laptop...no compressing, no rendering, no ingesting, no coloring, none of that jazz?

These is the difference in shooting with RAW and CineformRAW.

The CineformRAW file (today as an .avi) can be directly used for DAILIES or could I say HOURLIES? The files are not only the quarter resolution proxy for viewing and editing, they also contain the full resolution 1920 by 1080 data within them. This means you dont even have to refer back to original footage to do an edit or composite; the data is ALWAYS in the one file.

Another important point is the codec can run on simple PC's and do not require any special dual-core PC hardware. That means you can watch the clip directly on the notebook you purchased last year or maybe even the year before that.

So, if your concern is operating in CineformRAW from a workflow perspective, you really shouldnt. The benefits of file communcation speed, image quality and production flexibility are far superior to any traditional pre-encoded, pre-colorized and/or highly compressed format.

If you want the resolution, detail, dynamic range, 10-bit-depth and workflow....

Shoot it on SILICON!!!

I had an entire post typed up, around 2 pages, about why the RED camera in my opinion may be a better choice than the SI, but I decided not to post it, because really, the last thing we need is a flame war.

Please people, realize that although the SI is great, the RED is too. The RED is revolutionary in the same way that the SI is. The SI's a fine camera for indies. The RED is too.

Tom,

I appreciate your commentary and participation in the Silicon Forum (and please do continue).

However...!!!!! Please try to make your statement in correct present terms, with supporting facts and without hypothesis (unless stated as such).

Today, you are absolutely correct...

Silicon IS Great
Silicon IS Revolutionary

Any comment about other products should also be in present terms. Therefore:

Competitor-A MAYBE Great (at some uknown time in the future...)
Competitor-A MAYBE Revolutionary (at some uknown time in the future...)

I would not state "Silicon IS Great and so is Competitor-A"? Have you seen images, footage, user interface, controls, displays, proxies, workflow, networking, storage, upgradability, flexibility or ANYTHING in operation?


Conclusion:
Today, your only choice IS

SHOOT IT ON SILICON!

Silicon IS Great
Silicon IS Revolutionary

Any comment about other products should also be in present terms. Therefore:

Competitor-A MAYBE Great (at some uknown time in the future...)
Competitor-A MAYBE Revolutionary (at some uknown time in the future...)

I would not state "Silicon IS Great and so is Competitor-A"? Have you seen images, footage, user interface, controls, displays, proxies, workflow, networking, storage, upgradability, flexibility or ANYTHING in operation?


Conclusion:
Today, your only choice IS

SHOOT IT ON SILICON!What's this? Advertisement? With the due respect, including reporting your enthusiasm, it's not the best way to convince anyone of the advantages of your product. Maybe, I will rent or buy this camera and there isn't need to this bad consumer banners . . .

If you want to sell the idea of shooting on your cinema camera after all to the professional people . . . As trustful goals: product (quality, form factor, ease, innovation, etc.), reliability and support will be enough.

Well, Silicon is revolutionary but what is the benchmark for calling it revolutionary? Are you basing that in price vs ergonomics and efficieny, if so with what?

May I suggest, as I have suggested before. Silicon is obviously something for the indie market as well as big budget teams. Who can Silicon honestly be compared to, the D20, Genesis, Viper? I don't know. It's all good having a table saying what Silicon has above the competitors, but real world tests will prove that this camera is above and beyond what us consumer hope.

I'm pretty sure Arri and Panavision would be fully compliant to test their product with yours, if not just rent, it's worth the expense.

i'm a bit irritated too ari..you have a great product, no need to fight over who's got the bigger b*lls...i think both cameras will coexist..and there will be quite a few more entering this market next year at NAB i bet, now that you've proven it works ;)

the dislikes i have with RED has to do with their marketing..and the artcenter-sissy-design...the renderings you saw at NAB takes a small group of designers and a coupleadays of 3d modelling..if you look at them, you see many things have not yet been thought through..anyway - many like the design and i'm sure jim's team will fix all - the big work is 'round the sensor and electronics anyway.

so you got a great product, no need to convince us all..i also like very much the testing that's done on it. i wish the red would not be in such a hurry. look at arri and their D20. it's been around for quite a while but they collect all the data and inputs from the DPs around the world b4 they go into bigger production

Ari, thanks for popping your head in to make a few posts. Yes, on the RAW issue, I was corrected. I completely stand corrected on that point, and I take back what I did say earler on that point. I was simply unaware that the Cineform codec could allow you to do that.

As to the "Is" versus "Maybe" game, well, that's all fine and dandy with me. I guess a good way to put my opinion into terms is that yes, if you need to shoot something now, "SHOOT IT ON SILICON!", but if you're looking for the next big new camera and can wait until, let's say October or November, Why not see what the RED has to offer, eh?

Now to all of you irritated at Ari, let's all just cool our heads. Everybody's got a right to toot their own horn when they've designed, built, and brought to market a D-Cinema camera. :)

Okay,

This thread is getting out of hand.

The whole premise of the thread is wrong . . . a user coming to us wondering how we're going to "compete" with a non-existent camera, that when I happen to list the specs for (based on what I'm seeing as their responses on the threads in their forums across the net), the maker comes to me and says it's all speculation!

So frankly, we can't compete with speculation . . . there's no need . . . we simply need to hunker our heads down right now and make the best camera we can at this point in time for release in Q3.

Your feedback as poential end-users has been invaluble, and will continue to be-we can't make the camera you want without your input.

So let's stop this thread, and start up something more productive, like features you want to see, form-factors you want to see, problems with the current crop of gear (from other manufacturers) that are really annoying you and you want fixed, etc.

That's the only way we'll really be able to make a "revolutionary" product.

Thanks again for everyone's support.

>>Ari, thanks for popping your head in to make a few posts. Yes, on the RAW issue, I was corrected. I completely stand corrected on that point, and I take back what I did say earler on that point. I was simply unaware that the Cineform codec could allow you to do that.<<

This is exactly why this thread is a GOOD thing, and not simply a flame war. There is a lot about the SI that we didn't quiet understand...until this thread came along.

EDIT: Jason, I posted this right as you posted yours above me. If you want to delete the thread it is up to you, of course. But I think this thread has served its purpose in terms of informing people about the SI camera and it also highlights many ASSUMPTIONS people are making about the RED camera.

No, no, I'm not deleting anything . . . I just want to get back on-topic . . . :)

Your user feedback is the most valuable asset we have . . . debating the featuers of RED, which even if you quote the boards is said to *still* be speculation, is not really very productive. You're completely right, RED is actually ALL ASSUMPTION at this point in time.

So, when the real RED comes out, then fair comparisons can be made . . . but the best thing for us will be the have the features all of you want . . . THAT will be the best way to compete or co-exist . . . we're not going to be around very long if we're not listening to you guys, making improvements, and evolving our product.

One thing I'd like to see on the SI camera (if not there already) is a DVI port to feed 1080 to a decent sized monitor. Everyone is getting excited about shooting with shallow DOF but without a decent monitor to see exactly where focus is that can be a two edged sword.

Another issue I don't think receiving enough attention is the quality of lens mounts and the whole engineering of the sensor to lens matching, my understanding is that this is a major cost component in (good) camera design.

I guess a decent back focus adjustment system would also be on the list for those who are going to be swapping lenses. Might not be an issue, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about!

Reason I raise these issues is we're contemplating the purchase of one or more SI cameras for rental but rental kit needs to be pretty bullet proof. Reading some blurb from one rental company in the USA the issues I've raised are significant factors with the F900 and so far I don't see these issues getting enough attention from RED or SI.

Is it possible these are the things that contribute to the much higher costs of cameras from Arrie and Panavision?

Hi Bob,

We have a DVI port feeding out 720P right now . . . it's at this resolution so that you won't loose sync to the on-board LCD/touchscreen interface which can't run at 1920x1080.

We've investigated doing two different resolutions to two different screens, but have found it takes up too many system resources to do the rest of what needs to be done in the system, like real-time compression to CineForm RAW.

But you can run "large" monitors at HD resolution, again, just make sure the monitor is capable of 720/60P.

Also in regards to the back focus system, we have a very robust system that allows you to set the back focus, and then clamp the lens mount down so that it's not going anywhere. It's actually much more robust than the plastic/metal combo of the Sony F900.

Hope this helps.

The way I see it is, with something like Silicon if you want to make a big budget or small indie flick and blow up to 35mm, it will look good. No evidence for that, but if the F900 can, so can this, and that is that. What we have here is a PRO camera that MIGHT deliver what the D20, HDCAM and Vipers can deliver. Period. Is RED better, I don't know, I don't care, who cares!

i think SI is doing good getting the word out on the SI camera since NAB and at the same time i'm not sure if there's a marketing plan in place ?????? but that could be just waiting for the Q3 release ... i've yet to see any ad on any web site or in print ????

will the SI camera remain HD (1920x1080) for Q3 release or will it move to 2k , HD, & 720p ... though 2k is just a slight bump IMO it has a totally different appeal/advertise/ or should i say i've been hearing about HD for over 15 years and when i see/hear HD i think TV ....
i've seen Ari post over at DVXuser with the possible S hd logo and the S 2k logo - IMO S2K attracks attention ... it puts it above many of the current HD camera's out there ...

also IMO the QT & FCP will also be a huge help for the SI market .. IMO a Producer/company always checks in with the DP and Editor on shooting and workflow -either one of those can put the "NO" on shooting a camera..
the SI may have the BEST post workflow this/that with premiere BUT IMO you are going to find editor after editor that will say NO to premiere ...

What's this? Advertisement? With the due respect, including reporting your enthusiasm, it's not the best way to convince anyone of the advantages of your product. Maybe, I will rent or buy this camera and there isn't need to this bad consumer banners . . .

If you want to sell the idea of shooting on your cinema camera after all to the professional people . . . As trustful goals: product (quality, form factor, ease, innovation, etc.), reliability and support will be enough.

This is the SI forum and they are commenting on how they "feel" their product is being inaccurately presented when compared to another product. Call it advertising if you want but then you should go over to the RED forum and have every post removed as that product doesn't even exist then go into every other forum thread about any other camera and take anything good anyone says about a product and remove it. After all we don't want people advertising.

Most important, if having a company posting to these threads means they post an occasional "our product is great because" then so be it. There are not many places to go where you can actually communicate with the manufactures of the product you are using/going to use. It's nice to have the ear of the CE0 or CTO so let's give them some slack, especially when it's in their own forum.

Now to make this thread constructive...

Ari/Jason - Here is my free marketing advice - Get your camera into the hands of film makers. Lend it for free to various types of film projects (action, horror/suspence, comedy, Nature (National Geographic), etc. with the agreement that they must release footage as they shoot film.

The footage posted to the public forums and websites will serve to sell way more cameras and create way more interest than some count down on a web page or handouts telling people how great something will be.

The Spoon footage sells itself - without a a single sentence or marketing buzz word.

Tim is absolutely correct however the camera could advertise itself a little better although I think it's too small to do this effectively. Perhaps adding a large set of 'Micky Mouse' ears on the top with "SILICON IMAGING" in a large font would help, doesn't seem to have hurt Panavision.

Yeah, the QT link is good. I really love the idea of being able to run the rig with my Final Cut Pro system. Also, how much is the weight figuring at? I'm hoping under 15 pounds for flying on smaller Steadicams. That's one of the things I'm loving about the RED is that the body's only 7 pounds.

Alright, but for now I'm out of this thread, because simply I don't have enough time to be keeping up with this many threads.

Alright guys, now I'm just waiting to use it on a production. (Possibly along with the RED, in the ultimate of ideal situations.)